��������

Many people are interested in how they can eat in a more climate-friendly way. I’m often asked about the most effective way to do so.

While we might intuitively think that “food miles” — how far our food has traveled to reach us — play a big role, transport accounts for just 5% of the global emissions from our food system.

This is because most of the world’s food comes by boat, and shipping is a relatively low-carbon mode of transport. The chart shows that transporting a kilogram of food by boat emits 50 times less carbon than by plane and about 20 times less than trucks on the road.

So, food transport would be a much bigger emitter if all our food were flown across the world — but that’s only the case for highly perishable foods, like asparagus, green beans, some types of fish, and berries.

This means that what you eat and how it is produced usually matters more than how far it’s traveled to reach you.

Read my article “You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local” →

For many readers in high-income countries, the Internet might no longer feel revolutionary. But when I was born in 1997, only 2% of the world's population used the Internet. By 2019, that number had risen to over 50%; today, two-thirds of the global population is online.

It’s worth taking a moment to appreciate the novelty and speed of this change for two reasons. First, much of the potential progress enabled by the Internet is still unfolding, from expanding educational opportunities through free online resources to reducing the cost of sending money home for migrants.

Second, it’s good to remember that in 2023, a third of people still didn’t use the Internet. Accelerating connectivity could give these individuals greater freedom and access to new opportunities. The United Nations aims to get more than 90% of people online by 2030. Some regions are still far from universal access, with just 43% of South Asia and 37% of Sub-Saharan Africa connected.

Explore more data on Internet use, country by country →

Describing someone as “young” or “old” is rather arbitrary. However, something we can quantify is whether a given person is “young” or “old” compared to the rest of the world.

Imagine we sorted all 8 billion people alive today from youngest to oldest. The person standing right in the middle would be about 30 years old; that's the median age today. The chart shows the global median age and the UN’s projection to 2100.

In 2025, if you are over 30, you are older than most people in the world.

The chart also shows that if you were born in 1950, you stopped being “young” when you passed 20, as that was the median age in 1970.

As birth rates decline and life expectancy increases, the median age is expected to keep rising until the end of the century.

Whether you’re younger or older than most, the world is still relatively young, and this matters for many aspects of society, from the demand for resources and jobs to long-term planning for healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

If you want to dig deeper into this data, have a look at our Population & Demography Data Explorer��→

Fifty years ago, almost half the adults in Great Britain smoked cigarettes, but this has become much less common.

In the 1970s, half of men and 40% of women over the age of 16 reported smoking cigarettes. Since then, smoking rates have steadily fallen. By 2023, this was just 12% of men and 10% of women.

This dramatic decline is the result of decades of public health efforts such as clear warnings on cigarette packs, bans on tobacco advertising, indoor smoking restrictions, and support to help people quit. Newer technologies — including vaping products, nicotine patches, and medications — have also helped many people quit.

Despite this, smoking remains the leading risk factor for preventable death in the UK, raising the risk of many cancers, heart attacks, and strokes. Fewer smokers means fewer people suffering from these serious diseases.

Read more about the global problem of smoking in an article by my colleague Max →

A recent report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) highlights the high concentration of poverty in Latin America. Across the region, around 89 million people — more than one in seven — live on less than $3.65 a day.

Poverty can be measured using various poverty lines; here, we’re looking at the $3.65 line, which the World Bank uses to define poverty in lower-middle-income countries.

The chart shows that 52.2 million people living under this line are in just three countries — Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico — representing 59% of the region’s total.

As the report explains, while Brazil and Mexico don’t have the highest poverty rates, their large populations mean they have the largest number of people living below this line. Venezuela, in contrast, has a smaller population but one of the region’s highest poverty rates.

Identifying where poverty is most concentrated can help target efforts to reduce and eliminate it.

You can explore more data on poverty, including different poverty lines and world regions, in our Poverty Data Explorer →

One of the most pressing problems I hear from European friends is that they cannot find an affordable place to live. Housing costs represent one of the largest expenses for most Europeans. While many people rent, purchasing a home remains a goal for some.

The chart shows the change in house prices of residential properties purchased by households in 12 countries across the European Union since 2010. In many, prices have increased sharply (even after inflation). Portugal shows the most dramatic increase, with prices rising by 50%.

But this large increase has not happened everywhere. Rises have been more modest in France and Belgium, and prices have actually fallen considerably in Romania and Italy.

These huge differences matter to young Europeans hoping to find their first home after leaving their family house.

It’s often difficult to understand the scale of wildfires globally. That’s because most news coverage focuses on only a few countries.

News headlines might be filled with stories about large fires in Greece, Portugal, the United States, or Canada, but when we look at the data, the global total is no higher than usual.

This is because the global trend is so strongly dictated by the extent of fires in Africa, which we almost never hear about. As you can see in the chart, Africa experiences more than half of the burned area globally every year. In some years, it’s as much as two-thirds of the total.

Whether it’s a “high” or “low” year for wildfires globally largely reflects whether it’s a high or low year for Africa. These global trends don’t tell us much about the extent of wildfires in other regions.

Track global, regional, and country-level data on wildfires, which we update weekly��→